My wife went to the dentist today. $150 for a simple cleaning plus a few
pictures (not X-rays). Told her she needed two fillings - $525 each.
Plus a crown - $1050.
Doesn't this seem a bit steep? I know medical inflation has been high,
but really. Note that her old dentist retired. A young guy took over
his practice and raised all the prices. Maybe he's trying to recoup his
med school costs and the cost of the practice all in the first year or
two.
Or I might just be out of touch. I got dentures 36 years ago. I'm now
on my 4th set. Almost no problems - much less than folks with real
teeth. As far as cost, it has averaged out about $100 a year - latest
set was $800.
But it sure seems to me that her dentist is overcharging.
--
This message was for rec.woodworking - if it appears in homeownershub
they ripped it off.
On 12/20/2013 10:19 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 06:30:44 -0800, jo4hn wrote:
>
>> Part of the cost goes toward combating the overweening sadness inherent
>> in the profession. On your next visit, note that the dentist is forever
>> looking down in the mouth.
>
> Ouch! Bad joke :-). But preferable to the dingbats who hijacked the
> thread to foam at the mouth about Obamacare.
>
Amen. And Merry Christmas to all.
mahalo,
jo4hn
Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/21/2013 04:54 PM, John Grossbohlin wrote:
>> "Leon" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> The data about you and I is out there, the government just does not
>>> know how to put two plus two together efficiently.
>>
>> There is a lot of truth to that... I've been in meetings with the
>> "experts" assembled by one state and was stunned by how little they
>> understood about how the data from various sources could and should fit
>> together... it is NO surprise to me that the backend of the federal ACA
>> web site is dysfunctional.
>>
>>
> Not to mention that the front end is insecure. Your info is behind a
> paper thin wall to those non government types who would like to get their hands on it.
>
And that statement pretty much states the actual danger we have always had.
The government knowing everything about us is a given, except for maybe a
thought that has yet to pass through our minds. :-)
The real danger is that the government is not capable of out smarting those
that want our information. It is not capable of safe guarding all of the
information that it has on us.
If one needs proof of the government not being intelligent enough to safe
guard our information, look at who gets elected and those that work under
them and their long history of being caught with their pants down by the
likes of the media.
On 12/20/2013 5:48 PM, dadiOH wrote:
> "Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>> Since I took the time to show how the Constitution allows
>> states to regulate traffic, return the favor, and show me
>> where the Constitution empowers Congress to enact federal
>> laws regulating the accuracy and universality of medical
>> record keeping.
>
> Constitution? They don' need no steenkin' constitution.
>
Exactly
On 12/20/2013 1:53 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 12/20/2013 12:33 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 12/20/2013 10:06 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 12/20/2013 9:03 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>> On 12/20/2013 10:19 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>> On 12/20/2013 7:45 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:30:33 -0500, Keith Nuttle
>>>>>>> I see no problem in an individual doctor computerizing his medical
>>>>>>> records, BUT there is no need for the government to be involved
>>>>>>> except
>>>>>>> to monitor the accuracy of these systems handling those records.
>>>>>>> Most
>>>>>>> people live and die within one locality and toward the end of their
>>>>>>> lives go to one or two doctors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I agree with this. As you said, other than ensuring the accuracy
>>>>>> and universality of the record keeping, government shouldn't need to
>>>>>> know the content of those records.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where in the United States Constitution does it say that Congress
>>>>> shall
>>>>> have the power to enact laws regulating the accuracy and
>>>>> universality of
>>>>> medical record keeping?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Medical computer systems are consider Medical Devices and subject to
>>>> the
>>>> 2.3% obamacare tax.
>>>>
>>>> The FDA has been given the responsibilty to insure that all medical
>>>> device and drugs are safe and effective.
>>>>
>>>> In this case it would be the FDA's responsibilty to insure that the
>>>> medical records went into the system, were stored in the system without
>>>> being altered, could be retrive as originally written from the system.
>>>> and that there was an effective protection system to prevent tampering
>>>> with those records.
>>>>
>>>> The FDA has been in existance for over 100 years and people complain
>>>> bitterly if it does not do its job. Remember the tylenol scare, the
>>>> drug that created birth defects, etc
>>>
>>> Where in that response is my question answered?
>>
>> Where in the constitution does it say that you can't run a stop sign?
>> If you want the proof, try and disprove it.
>
> The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United
> States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
> reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since the
> Constitution does not delegate to the federal government the power to
> regulate local vehicle traffic, that power is reserved to the States.
> Cities and counties are subdivisions of the states, who collectively,
> under the Constitution, have the power under the Tenth Amendment to
> regulate local vehicle traffic. That includes the state/local
> government power to erect stop signs and provide penalties for failing
> to stop at an intersection where a stop sign has been erected.
>
> Since I took the time to show how the Constitution allows states to
> regulate traffic, return the favor, and show me where the Constitution
> empowers Congress to enact federal laws regulating the accuracy and
> universality of medical record keeping.
Keep Looking you will find it. You are the one that wants to know
right? '~)
A lot depends on the dentist. A local "Modern Dentist" sent flyers
for $29 cleaning plus X-rays and pictures with a free electric tooth
brush. The results were I was not eligible for that cleaning because
I had periodontal disease so I needed their $1000 cleaning. There
were 2 crowns they would like to replace at $2000 each and 3 fillings
for $400 each. The pictures were first class, the 3d x-rays were
amazing. The office was high tech. I went elsewhere.
I went to an old fashion dentist. His office straight out of the
70's. Cleaning is $75. One crown has a small hole with the
underlying tooth is sound. If it becomes a problem he can fill it
through the hole. At 40 years old it is still perfectly sound. He
did 3 surfaces with UV cured acrylic material. It took an hour and he
charged $112. I have had literally hundreds of cavities filled using
this technology with out a problem.
The first dentist I went to had a foot powered drill. He peddled it
like an old sewing machine. About $1 per filling, but that was 70
years ago.
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 07:17:15 -0500, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>> My wife went to the dentist today. $150 for a simple
>> cleaning plus a few pictures (not X-rays). Told her she
>> needed two fillings - $525 each. Plus a crown - $1050.
>>
>> Doesn't this seem a bit steep? I know medical inflation
>> has been high, but really. Note that her old dentist
>> retired. A young guy took over his practice and raised
>> all the prices. Maybe he's trying to recoup his med
>> school costs and the cost of the practice all in the
>> first year or two.
>>
>> Or I might just be out of touch. I got dentures 36 years
>> ago. I'm now on my 4th set. Almost no problems - much
>> less than folks with real teeth. As far as cost, it has
>> averaged out about $100 a year - latest set was $800.
>>
>> But it sure seems to me that her dentist is overcharging.
>
>Prices vary. I went to one guy for cleaning. He wasn't my usual dentist
>but she is a considerable distance away. He advised me I needed to have
>"deep cleaning". I don't recall the price but it was in four figures. I
>declined and checked with my regular dentist...her price was 1/4 his.
>
>Your prices do seem high but I've had very little contact with dentists. I
>only have two small fillings and I didn't have any until I was about 75. I
>don't recall the price for them but I guarantee that the cost for both was
>well under $525.
>
>Check around...call and ask price info for fillings and crowns.
>
>Here's a site saying $75-$150 for silver fillings.
>
>http://bestdentaltips.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/how-much-does-a-cavity-filling-typically-cost-without-dental-insurance/
On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 20:17:33 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>I fully support my doctor going to digital records and getting rid of the
>racks of file folders. I also support that those records remain in that
>office. If needed across the country to treat me, they can be sent at the
>speed of an electron. I have no issue with technology. Dave - please read
>the things I write before jumping into a reply that misses the point of what
>I said.
Obviously, we're not agreeing to what "online" means. When I say
"online", I'm not for one second suggesting that records put made
available for any medical professional to see at the click of a mouse.
Sending records across the country at the speed of an electron *IS*
putting them online, if only for the time it takes to send those
records. Electronic transmission is an online process as far as I'm
concerned.
On 12/20/2013 7:45 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:30:33 -0500, Keith Nuttle
>> I see no problem in an individual doctor computerizing his medical
>> records, BUT there is no need for the government to be involved except
>> to monitor the accuracy of these systems handling those records. Most
>> people live and die within one locality and toward the end of their
>> lives go to one or two doctors.
>
> Yes, I agree with this. As you said, other than ensuring the accuracy
> and universality of the record keeping, government shouldn't need to
> know the content of those records.
Where in the United States Constitution does it say that Congress shall
have the power to enact laws regulating the accuracy and universality of
medical record keeping?
On 12/20/2013 9:03 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 12/20/2013 10:19 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 12/20/2013 7:45 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:30:33 -0500, Keith Nuttle
>>>> I see no problem in an individual doctor computerizing his medical
>>>> records, BUT there is no need for the government to be involved except
>>>> to monitor the accuracy of these systems handling those records. Most
>>>> people live and die within one locality and toward the end of their
>>>> lives go to one or two doctors.
>>>
>>> Yes, I agree with this. As you said, other than ensuring the accuracy
>>> and universality of the record keeping, government shouldn't need to
>>> know the content of those records.
>>
>> Where in the United States Constitution does it say that Congress shall
>> have the power to enact laws regulating the accuracy and universality of
>> medical record keeping?
>>
>>
> Medical computer systems are consider Medical Devices and subject to the
> 2.3% obamacare tax.
>
> The FDA has been given the responsibilty to insure that all medical
> device and drugs are safe and effective.
>
> In this case it would be the FDA's responsibilty to insure that the
> medical records went into the system, were stored in the system without
> being altered, could be retrive as originally written from the system.
> and that there was an effective protection system to prevent tampering
> with those records.
>
> The FDA has been in existance for over 100 years and people complain
> bitterly if it does not do its job. Remember the tylenol scare, the
> drug that created birth defects, etc
Where in that response is my question answered?
On 12/20/2013 12:33 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 12/20/2013 10:06 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 12/20/2013 9:03 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>> On 12/20/2013 10:19 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> On 12/20/2013 7:45 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:30:33 -0500, Keith Nuttle
>>>>>> I see no problem in an individual doctor computerizing his medical
>>>>>> records, BUT there is no need for the government to be involved
>>>>>> except
>>>>>> to monitor the accuracy of these systems handling those records.
>>>>>> Most
>>>>>> people live and die within one locality and toward the end of their
>>>>>> lives go to one or two doctors.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I agree with this. As you said, other than ensuring the accuracy
>>>>> and universality of the record keeping, government shouldn't need to
>>>>> know the content of those records.
>>>>
>>>> Where in the United States Constitution does it say that Congress shall
>>>> have the power to enact laws regulating the accuracy and
>>>> universality of
>>>> medical record keeping?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Medical computer systems are consider Medical Devices and subject to the
>>> 2.3% obamacare tax.
>>>
>>> The FDA has been given the responsibilty to insure that all medical
>>> device and drugs are safe and effective.
>>>
>>> In this case it would be the FDA's responsibilty to insure that the
>>> medical records went into the system, were stored in the system without
>>> being altered, could be retrive as originally written from the system.
>>> and that there was an effective protection system to prevent tampering
>>> with those records.
>>>
>>> The FDA has been in existance for over 100 years and people complain
>>> bitterly if it does not do its job. Remember the tylenol scare, the
>>> drug that created birth defects, etc
>>
>> Where in that response is my question answered?
>
> Where in the constitution does it say that you can't run a stop sign?
> If you want the proof, try and disprove it.
The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since the
Constitution does not delegate to the federal government the power to
regulate local vehicle traffic, that power is reserved to the States.
Cities and counties are subdivisions of the states, who collectively,
under the Constitution, have the power under the Tenth Amendment to
regulate local vehicle traffic. That includes the state/local
government power to erect stop signs and provide penalties for failing
to stop at an intersection where a stop sign has been erected.
Since I took the time to show how the Constitution allows states to
regulate traffic, return the favor, and show me where the Constitution
empowers Congress to enact federal laws regulating the accuracy and
universality of medical record keeping.
On 12/20/2013 02:02 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 12/20/2013 1:53 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 12/20/2013 12:33 PM, Leon wrote:
>>> On 12/20/2013 10:06 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> On 12/20/2013 9:03 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>>> On 12/20/2013 10:19 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/20/2013 7:45 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:30:33 -0500, Keith Nuttle
>>>>>>>> I see no problem in an individual doctor computerizing his medical
>>>>>>>> records, BUT there is no need for the government to be involved
>>>>>>>> except
>>>>>>>> to monitor the accuracy of these systems handling those records.
>>>>>>>> Most
>>>>>>>> people live and die within one locality and toward the end of their
>>>>>>>> lives go to one or two doctors.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I agree with this. As you said, other than ensuring the
>>>>>>> accuracy
>>>>>>> and universality of the record keeping, government shouldn't need to
>>>>>>> know the content of those records.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where in the United States Constitution does it say that Congress
>>>>>> shall
>>>>>> have the power to enact laws regulating the accuracy and
>>>>>> universality of
>>>>>> medical record keeping?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Medical computer systems are consider Medical Devices and subject to
>>>>> the
>>>>> 2.3% obamacare tax.
>>>>>
>>>>> The FDA has been given the responsibilty to insure that all medical
>>>>> device and drugs are safe and effective.
>>>>>
>>>>> In this case it would be the FDA's responsibilty to insure that the
>>>>> medical records went into the system, were stored in the system
>>>>> without
>>>>> being altered, could be retrive as originally written from the system.
>>>>> and that there was an effective protection system to prevent tampering
>>>>> with those records.
>>>>>
>>>>> The FDA has been in existance for over 100 years and people complain
>>>>> bitterly if it does not do its job. Remember the tylenol scare, the
>>>>> drug that created birth defects, etc
>>>>
>>>> Where in that response is my question answered?
>>>
>>> Where in the constitution does it say that you can't run a stop sign?
>>> If you want the proof, try and disprove it.
>>
>> The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United
>> States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
>> reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since the
>> Constitution does not delegate to the federal government the power to
>> regulate local vehicle traffic, that power is reserved to the States.
>> Cities and counties are subdivisions of the states, who collectively,
>> under the Constitution, have the power under the Tenth Amendment to
>> regulate local vehicle traffic. That includes the state/local
>> government power to erect stop signs and provide penalties for failing
>> to stop at an intersection where a stop sign has been erected.
>>
>> Since I took the time to show how the Constitution allows states to
>> regulate traffic, return the favor, and show me where the Constitution
>> empowers Congress to enact federal laws regulating the accuracy and
>> universality of medical record keeping.
>
> Keep Looking you will find it. You are the one that wants to know
> right? '~)
I looked at the enumerated powers of the Federal Government under the
Constitution:
<http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/historical-documents/united-states-constitution/thirty-enumerated-powers/#.UrS0RNewukc>
Nope, not there.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
"Larry Blanchard" wrote:
> My wife went to the dentist today. $150 for a simple cleaning plus
> a few
> pictures (not X-rays). Told her she needed two fillings - $525
> each.
> Plus a crown - $1050.
>
> Doesn't this seem a bit steep?
<snip>
------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds about right.
I just had my teeth cleaned and the fee was $132 less 10% senior
citizen discount.
Lew
On 12/20/2013 2:02 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 12/20/2013 1:53 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 12/20/2013 12:33 PM, Leon wrote:
>>> On 12/20/2013 10:06 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> On 12/20/2013 9:03 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>>> On 12/20/2013 10:19 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/20/2013 7:45 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:30:33 -0500, Keith Nuttle
>>>>>>>> I see no problem in an individual doctor computerizing his medical
>>>>>>>> records, BUT there is no need for the government to be involved
>>>>>>>> except
>>>>>>>> to monitor the accuracy of these systems handling those records.
>>>>>>>> Most
>>>>>>>> people live and die within one locality and toward the end of their
>>>>>>>> lives go to one or two doctors.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I agree with this. As you said, other than ensuring the
>>>>>>> accuracy
>>>>>>> and universality of the record keeping, government shouldn't need to
>>>>>>> know the content of those records.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where in the United States Constitution does it say that Congress
>>>>>> shall
>>>>>> have the power to enact laws regulating the accuracy and
>>>>>> universality of
>>>>>> medical record keeping?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Medical computer systems are consider Medical Devices and subject to
>>>>> the
>>>>> 2.3% obamacare tax.
>>>>>
>>>>> The FDA has been given the responsibilty to insure that all medical
>>>>> device and drugs are safe and effective.
>>>>>
>>>>> In this case it would be the FDA's responsibilty to insure that the
>>>>> medical records went into the system, were stored in the system
>>>>> without
>>>>> being altered, could be retrive as originally written from the system.
>>>>> and that there was an effective protection system to prevent tampering
>>>>> with those records.
>>>>>
>>>>> The FDA has been in existance for over 100 years and people complain
>>>>> bitterly if it does not do its job. Remember the tylenol scare, the
>>>>> drug that created birth defects, etc
>>>>
>>>> Where in that response is my question answered?
>>>
>>> Where in the constitution does it say that you can't run a stop sign?
>>> If you want the proof, try and disprove it.
>>
>> The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United
>> States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
>> reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since the
>> Constitution does not delegate to the federal government the power to
>> regulate local vehicle traffic, that power is reserved to the States.
>> Cities and counties are subdivisions of the states, who collectively,
>> under the Constitution, have the power under the Tenth Amendment to
>> regulate local vehicle traffic. That includes the state/local
>> government power to erect stop signs and provide penalties for failing
>> to stop at an intersection where a stop sign has been erected.
>>
>> Since I took the time to show how the Constitution allows states to
>> regulate traffic, return the favor, and show me where the Constitution
>> empowers Congress to enact federal laws regulating the accuracy and
>> universality of medical record keeping.
>
> Keep Looking you will find it. You are the one that wants to know
> right? '~)
Wrong. Maybe you got lost in the thread. To recap:
[email protected] posted: "... other than ensuring the accuracy and
universality of the record keeping, government shouldn't need to know
the content of those records."
I questioned the federal government's constitutional power to act in
that area: "Where in the United States Constitution does it say that
Congress shall have the power to enact laws regulating the accuracy and
universality of medical record keeping?"
I think there is no such authority.
If [email protected] or anyone else thinks the government should be able to
ensure (or otherwise regulate) the accuracy and universality of medical
recordkeeping, the burden is on those who advocate in favor of that
position to support it.
On 12/20/2013 2:24 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
> On 12/20/2013 02:02 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 12/20/2013 1:53 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 12/20/2013 12:33 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>> On 12/20/2013 10:06 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>> On 12/20/2013 9:03 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/20/2013 10:19 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/20/2013 7:45 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:30:33 -0500, Keith Nuttle
>>>>>>>>> I see no problem in an individual doctor computerizing his medical
>>>>>>>>> records, BUT there is no need for the government to be involved
>>>>>>>>> except
>>>>>>>>> to monitor the accuracy of these systems handling those records.
>>>>>>>>> Most
>>>>>>>>> people live and die within one locality and toward the end of
>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>> lives go to one or two doctors.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, I agree with this. As you said, other than ensuring the
>>>>>>>> accuracy
>>>>>>>> and universality of the record keeping, government shouldn't
>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>> know the content of those records.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where in the United States Constitution does it say that Congress
>>>>>>> shall
>>>>>>> have the power to enact laws regulating the accuracy and
>>>>>>> universality of
>>>>>>> medical record keeping?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Medical computer systems are consider Medical Devices and subject to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> 2.3% obamacare tax.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The FDA has been given the responsibilty to insure that all medical
>>>>>> device and drugs are safe and effective.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In this case it would be the FDA's responsibilty to insure that the
>>>>>> medical records went into the system, were stored in the system
>>>>>> without
>>>>>> being altered, could be retrive as originally written from the
>>>>>> system.
>>>>>> and that there was an effective protection system to prevent
>>>>>> tampering
>>>>>> with those records.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The FDA has been in existance for over 100 years and people complain
>>>>>> bitterly if it does not do its job. Remember the tylenol scare, the
>>>>>> drug that created birth defects, etc
>>>>>
>>>>> Where in that response is my question answered?
>>>>
>>>> Where in the constitution does it say that you can't run a stop sign?
>>>> If you want the proof, try and disprove it.
>>>
>>> The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United
>>> States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
>>> reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since the
>>> Constitution does not delegate to the federal government the power to
>>> regulate local vehicle traffic, that power is reserved to the States.
>>> Cities and counties are subdivisions of the states, who collectively,
>>> under the Constitution, have the power under the Tenth Amendment to
>>> regulate local vehicle traffic. That includes the state/local
>>> government power to erect stop signs and provide penalties for failing
>>> to stop at an intersection where a stop sign has been erected.
>>>
>>> Since I took the time to show how the Constitution allows states to
>>> regulate traffic, return the favor, and show me where the Constitution
>>> empowers Congress to enact federal laws regulating the accuracy and
>>> universality of medical record keeping.
>>
>> Keep Looking you will find it. You are the one that wants to know
>> right? '~)
>
> I looked at the enumerated powers of the Federal Government under the
> Constitution:
>
> <http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/historical-documents/united-states-constitution/thirty-enumerated-powers/#.UrS0RNewukc>
>
> Nope, not there.
>
My point exactly.
On 12/20/2013 7:46 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 12/20/2013 5:48 PM, dadiOH wrote:
>> "Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>
>>> Since I took the time to show how the Constitution allows
>>> states to regulate traffic, return the favor, and show me
>>> where the Constitution empowers Congress to enact federal
>>> laws regulating the accuracy and universality of medical
>>> record keeping.
>>
>> Constitution? They don' need no steenkin' constitution.
>>
>
> Exactly
Barack, baby? You here?
On 12/21/2013 04:54 PM, John Grossbohlin wrote:
> "Leon" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> The data about you and I is out there, the government just does not
>> know how to put two plus two together efficiently.
>
> There is a lot of truth to that... I've been in meetings with the
> "experts" assembled by one state and was stunned by how little they
> understood about how the data from various sources could and should fit
> together... it is NO surprise to me that the backend of the federal ACA
> web site is dysfunctional.
>
>
Not to mention that the front end is insecure. Your info is behind a
paper thin wall to those non government types who would like to get
their hands on it.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
"Larry Blanchard" wrote:
>
>> My wife went to the dentist today. $150 for a simple cleaning plus
>> a few
>> pictures (not X-rays). Told her she needed two fillings - $525
>> each.
>> Plus a crown - $1050.
>>
>> Doesn't this seem a bit steep?
> <snip>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
> Sounds about right.
>
> I just had my teeth cleaned and the fee was $132 less 10% senior
> citizen discount.
-------------------------------------------------
Just got the bill.
Had two (2) small cavities in upper front teeth filled - $250 each.
Gives you another data point.
Asked the dentist about his fee schedule. He indicated they
follow Delta Dental fee structure.
Lew
On 12/21/2013 9:11 AM, John Grossbohlin wrote:
> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>> On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:15:57 -0500, Keith Nuttle
>>> You also have to figure in the cost required by obamacare to computerize
>>> medical records, so it is easier for the NSA to snoop.
>
>> Sure, it would be easier for *anybody* to snoop, but how about putting
>> aside your paranoid tendencies for one minute and consider some of the
>> advantages. Records get transferred faster between medical
>> professionals, they get updated faster, administration is easier and
>> cheaper, symptoms get tracked easier, research is more efficient, the
>> list goes on and on.
>
> Yes, the list does go on and on... As the ultimate payer for Medicare
> and Medicaid the government has and will continue to collect medical
> data on anyone covered under those programs. With subsidies under ACA
> they also now have an interest from the payer perspective for commercial
> lines of business. They use the medical encounter data to ferret out
> fraud (which historically has been rampant) and they also monitor the
> quality of care providers render. Under CMS's Stars program the
> insurance companies are reimbursed based on the quality of care their
> providers render. As such the plans analyze the encounter data and
> undertake provider education initiatives so that providers follow best
> practices. Members shopping Docs to obtain drugs are also identified
> through the data. You may have heard about insurance companies
> terminating contracts with thousands of providers recently... the vast
> majority of those cases were the result of the provider not following
> best practices, i.e., rendering inadequate care, often despite years of
> interventions by the plans.
>
> Self funded plans (where a company pays the claims themselves) have an
> interest in improving the care and health of their employees also.
> While they don't see the individual employees' data they do see
> aggregated data... they want to see an improvement in their employees'
> health over time. This improvement comes about as a result of health
> improvement programs (e.g., stop smoking, exercise, nutrition) and
> through high quality preventative care.
>
> Regarding privacy in the U.S... we have no privacy. Whether it's health
> data, surveillance cameras, credit card transaction data, loyalty
> programs at stores, education systems, internet, TV and phone
> utilization records... we are all under surveillance with or without
> government involvement.
>
>
>
>
AAMOF you have been sharing personal data with the government since your
feet were inked and stamped on your birth certificate.
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:33:18 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 12/20/2013 10:06 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 12/20/2013 9:03 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>> On 12/20/2013 10:19 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> On 12/20/2013 7:45 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:30:33 -0500, Keith Nuttle
>>>>>> I see no problem in an individual doctor computerizing his medical
>>>>>> records, BUT there is no need for the government to be involved except
>>>>>> to monitor the accuracy of these systems handling those records. Most
>>>>>> people live and die within one locality and toward the end of their
>>>>>> lives go to one or two doctors.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I agree with this. As you said, other than ensuring the accuracy
>>>>> and universality of the record keeping, government shouldn't need to
>>>>> know the content of those records.
>>>>
>>>> Where in the United States Constitution does it say that Congress shall
>>>> have the power to enact laws regulating the accuracy and universality of
>>>> medical record keeping?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Medical computer systems are consider Medical Devices and subject to the
>>> 2.3% obamacare tax.
>>>
>>> The FDA has been given the responsibilty to insure that all medical
>>> device and drugs are safe and effective.
>>>
>>> In this case it would be the FDA's responsibilty to insure that the
>>> medical records went into the system, were stored in the system without
>>> being altered, could be retrive as originally written from the system.
>>> and that there was an effective protection system to prevent tampering
>>> with those records.
>>>
>>> The FDA has been in existance for over 100 years and people complain
>>> bitterly if it does not do its job. Remember the tylenol scare, the
>>> drug that created birth defects, etc
>>
>> Where in that response is my question answered?
>
>Where in the constitution does it say that you can't run a stop sign?
>If you want the proof, try and disprove it.
Nowhere. With one exception, the Constitution has nothing to do with
individuals. It *only* addresses what the US government *can* do (not
what it can't). It is *only* a limitation on the government.
On 12/20/2013 10:06 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 12/20/2013 9:03 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>> On 12/20/2013 10:19 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 12/20/2013 7:45 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:30:33 -0500, Keith Nuttle
>>>>> I see no problem in an individual doctor computerizing his medical
>>>>> records, BUT there is no need for the government to be involved except
>>>>> to monitor the accuracy of these systems handling those records. Most
>>>>> people live and die within one locality and toward the end of their
>>>>> lives go to one or two doctors.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I agree with this. As you said, other than ensuring the accuracy
>>>> and universality of the record keeping, government shouldn't need to
>>>> know the content of those records.
>>>
>>> Where in the United States Constitution does it say that Congress shall
>>> have the power to enact laws regulating the accuracy and universality of
>>> medical record keeping?
>>>
>>>
>> Medical computer systems are consider Medical Devices and subject to the
>> 2.3% obamacare tax.
>>
>> The FDA has been given the responsibilty to insure that all medical
>> device and drugs are safe and effective.
>>
>> In this case it would be the FDA's responsibilty to insure that the
>> medical records went into the system, were stored in the system without
>> being altered, could be retrive as originally written from the system.
>> and that there was an effective protection system to prevent tampering
>> with those records.
>>
>> The FDA has been in existance for over 100 years and people complain
>> bitterly if it does not do its job. Remember the tylenol scare, the
>> drug that created birth defects, etc
>
> Where in that response is my question answered?
Where in the constitution does it say that you can't run a stop sign?
If you want the proof, try and disprove it.
On 12/20/2013 6:24 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>> Sure, it would be easier for *anybody* to snoop, but how about putting
>> aside your paranoid tendencies for one minute and consider some of the
>> advantages. Records get transferred faster between medical
>> professionals, they get updated faster, administration is easier and
>> cheaper, symptoms get tracked easier, research is more efficient, the
>> list goes on and on.
>
> I don't see all of those advantages you do Dave. But either way, we are a
> nation that believes in privacy and does indeed look with concern and
> distrust in governments and agencies with (potentially) self serving
> concerns, having unwarranted access to information about us. We don't
> suffer from the lack of any of the advantages you listed, so what's to be
> gained from Obamacare's intent?
>
Maybe you've never needed the features so you don't see the advantages.
Before going to full computerized records, my wife's file was about 10
inches thick and that was before some additional problems in the past
couple of years. Would be double that now. That file had to move from
the internist to the cardiologist to the hematologist. etc and it may be
in just a day or two or even the same day in locations a couple of miles
apart. ow, you have a scan or x-ray done and the doctor has it in
seconds. Need to compare an x-ray with one from last year? You have it
in seconds with no file hunting.
I hope you never have the need for quick access to multiple records, but
for those that do, it is well worth having. Our medical facility was
smart enough to do this before mandated.
"Leon" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>The data about you and I is out there, the government just does not know
>how to put two plus two together efficiently.
There is a lot of truth to that... I've been in meetings with the "experts"
assembled by one state and was stunned by how little they understood about
how the data from various sources could and should fit together... it is NO
surprise to me that the backend of the federal ACA web site is
dysfunctional.
On 12/19/2013 11:03 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:15:57 -0500, Keith Nuttle
>> You also have to figure in the cost required by obamacare to computerize
>> medical records, so it is easier for the NSA to snoop.
>
> Sure, it would be easier for *anybody* to snoop, but how about putting
> aside your paranoid tendencies for one minute and consider some of the
> advantages. Records get transferred faster between medical
> professionals, they get updated faster, administration is easier and
> cheaper, symptoms get tracked easier, research is more efficient, the
> list goes on and on.
>
Not to mention that the government has been spying on us for decades.
Like seasonal changes it is in the open and the general public is now
aware of it because of the easy pick'ins news coverage.
On 12/19/2013 6:43 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> My wife went to the dentist today. $150 for a simple cleaning plus a few
> pictures (not X-rays). Told her she needed two fillings - $525 each.
> Plus a crown - $1050.
>
> Doesn't this seem a bit steep? I know medical inflation has been high,
> but really. Note that her old dentist retired. A young guy took over
> his practice and raised all the prices. Maybe he's trying to recoup his
> med school costs and the cost of the practice all in the first year or
> two.
>
> Or I might just be out of touch. I got dentures 36 years ago. I'm now
> on my 4th set. Almost no problems - much less than folks with real
> teeth. As far as cost, it has averaged out about $100 a year - latest
> set was $800.
>
> But it sure seems to me that her dentist is overcharging.
>
Sounds high for fillings but a crown can be in that price range and has
been for some time. You might inquire as to what kind of crown, gold or
porcelain. At one time the more natural apearing porcelain crown was
more expensive than gold. These days the gold is probably more expensive.
Now you say you have almost no problems with your dentures and yet you
are on your 5 set of teeth. I'm still on my first set. ;~)
You do know that we, those that still have our originals, like to go to
the dentist for the gas. Huh?
On 12/21/2013 4:22 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> On 12/21/2013 1:44 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Regarding privacy in the U.S... we have no privacy. Whether it's
>>>> health data, surveillance cameras, credit card transaction data,
>>>> loyalty programs at stores, education systems, internet, TV and
>>>> phone utilization records... we are all under surveillance with or
>>>> without government involvement.
>>>
>>> And by that logic you believe you should surrender even more privacy?
>>>
>>
>>
>> I think what he is saying is that there is no privacy to hide. It is
>> already all out there. Just because you or I don't know who all
>> knows, does not mean that they don't know.
>
> I don't roll by that kind of logic. The government does not know as much as
> they want to know and will know under the new rules, and there's no reason
> to let them.
>
Mike you might be a bit naive if you don't think the government knows
more about you than you think they do, 50 years ago.
Now while I believe they have all the information that they would ever
care to get, I feel that they would mishandle it and or have mishandled
it. They don't really know what they are sitting on. I would agree
that they don't know what they have.
The data about you and I is out there, the government just does not know
how to put two plus two together efficiently.
On 12/19/2013 7:43 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> My wife went to the dentist today. $150 for a simple cleaning plus a few
> pictures (not X-rays). Told her she needed two fillings - $525 each.
> Plus a crown - $1050.
>
> Doesn't this seem a bit steep? I know medical inflation has been high,
> but really. Note that her old dentist retired. A young guy took over
> his practice and raised all the prices. Maybe he's trying to recoup his
> med school costs and the cost of the practice all in the first year or
> two.
My daughter manages a dental office. It was bought by the present owner
for over $1million. You can be sure this guy has a big nut every month
too. She just left for vacation so I can't verify the prices right now.
Fillings seem high though.
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 00:43:17 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>My wife went to the dentist today. $150 for a simple cleaning plus a few
>pictures (not X-rays). Told her she needed two fillings - $525 each.
>Plus a crown - $1050.
>
>Doesn't this seem a bit steep? I know medical inflation has been high,
>but really. Note that her old dentist retired. A young guy took over
>his practice and raised all the prices. Maybe he's trying to recoup his
>med school costs and the cost of the practice all in the first year or
>two.
>
>Or I might just be out of touch. I got dentures 36 years ago. I'm now
>on my 4th set. Almost no problems - much less than folks with real
>teeth. As far as cost, it has averaged out about $100 a year - latest
>set was $800.
>
>But it sure seems to me that her dentist is overcharging.
my dentist charges $750 for a crown
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 06:30:44 -0800, jo4hn <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 12/19/2013 4:43 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> My wife went to the dentist today. $150 for a simple cleaning plus a few
>> pictures (not X-rays). Told her she needed two fillings - $525 each.
>> Plus a crown - $1050.
>>
>> Doesn't this seem a bit steep? I know medical inflation has been high,
>> but really. Note that her old dentist retired. A young guy took over
>> his practice and raised all the prices. Maybe he's trying to recoup his
>> med school costs and the cost of the practice all in the first year or
>> two.
>>
>> Or I might just be out of touch. I got dentures 36 years ago. I'm now
>> on my 4th set. Almost no problems - much less than folks with real
>> teeth. As far as cost, it has averaged out about $100 a year - latest
>> set was $800.
>>
>> But it sure seems to me that her dentist is overcharging.
>>
>Part of the cost goes toward combating the overweening sadness inherent
>in the profession. On your next visit, note that the dentist is forever
>looking down in the mouth.
> mahalo,
> jo4hn
>[nyuk]
LOL
On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 14:44:00 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>And by that logic you believe you should surrender even more privacy?
He didn't say that or even suggest it. It was just a statement of
fact. You seem to believe that allowing or disallowing another
technology improvement is going to change something. It won't. The
horse is so far out of the barn on that one that it's in another
country.
Nevertheless, I do understand the need to fight against every little
incursion on your privacy, if only just to marginally slow it down or,
at the very least, get your displeasure known.
As far as digitizing medical records go, I'm all for it. The
advantages far outweigh the negatives as far as I'm concerned. And,
considering that I've had years of extensive contact with our medical
system, (Canadian in this case), I am fully aware of all the negatives
and positives.
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:30:33 -0500, Keith Nuttle
>I see no problem in an individual doctor computerizing his medical
>records, BUT there is no need for the government to be involved except
>to monitor the accuracy of these systems handling those records. Most
>people live and die within one locality and toward the end of their
>lives go to one or two doctors.
Yes, I agree with this. As you said, other than ensuring the accuracy
and universality of the record keeping, government shouldn't need to
know the content of those records.
On 12/19/2013 8:15 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 12/19/2013 7:43 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> ems - much less than folks with real
>> teeth. As far as cost, it has averaged out about $100 a year - latest
>> set was $800.
>>
>> But it sure seems to me that her dentist is overcharging.
>
>
> The first thing you need to look at is the 2.3% tax that obama care
> placed on medical devices. Medical devices are just about everything
> you see in the doctor's office. from band aids, to x-ray machines, to
> the medical computer on his desk.
>
> You also have to figure in the cost required by obamacare to computerize
> medical records, so it is easier for the NSA to snoop.
Easier, it gives the feds your records. It's required.
They will centralize your info so they can share it supposedly with the
doctors.
My Dr's hate obamacare. I hear it each time I walk in.
--
Jeff
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> My wife went to the dentist today. $150 for a simple cleaning plus a few
> pictures (not X-rays). Told her she needed two fillings - $525 each.
> Plus a crown - $1050.
>
> Doesn't this seem a bit steep? I know medical inflation has been high,
> but really. Note that her old dentist retired. A young guy took over
> his practice and raised all the prices. Maybe he's trying to recoup his
> med school costs and the cost of the practice all in the first year or
> two.
>
> Or I might just be out of touch. I got dentures 36 years ago. I'm now
> on my 4th set. Almost no problems - much less than folks with real
> teeth. As far as cost, it has averaged out about $100 a year - latest
> set was $800.
>
> But it sure seems to me that her dentist is overcharging.
>
$525 seems a lot for a filling. Maybe he has more work than he has time for?
I wouldn't go with a dentist that was not recommended by someone. Once I
did, and I was very disappointed.
Bill
On 12/19/2013 7:43 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> ems - much less than folks with real
> teeth. As far as cost, it has averaged out about $100 a year - latest
> set was $800.
>
> But it sure seems to me that her dentist is overcharging.
The first thing you need to look at is the 2.3% tax that obama care
placed on medical devices. Medical devices are just about everything
you see in the doctor's office. from band aids, to x-ray machines, to
the medical computer on his desk.
You also have to figure in the cost required by obamacare to computerize
medical records, so it is easier for the NSA to snoop.
On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 06:37:49 -0600, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>If one needs proof of the government not being intelligent enough to safe
>guard our information, look at who gets elected and those that work under
>them and their long history of being caught with their pants down by the
>likes of the media.
Notwithstanding all those politicians that are getting caught doing
something wrong, it's more important to be concerned about the ones
that haven't been caught yet. Or, the ones too smart to get caught.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:15:57 -0500, Keith Nuttle
>> You also have to figure in the cost required by obamacare to
>> computerize medical records, so it is easier for the NSA to snoop.
>
> Sure, it would be easier for *anybody* to snoop, but how about putting
> aside your paranoid tendencies for one minute and consider some of the
> advantages. Records get transferred faster between medical
> professionals, they get updated faster, administration is easier and
> cheaper, symptoms get tracked easier, research is more efficient, the
> list goes on and on.
I don't see all of those advantages you do Dave. But either way, we are a
nation that believes in privacy and does indeed look with concern and
distrust in governments and agencies with (potentially) self serving
concerns, having unwarranted access to information about us. We don't
suffer from the lack of any of the advantages you listed, so what's to be
gained from Obamacare's intent?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> My wife went to the dentist today. $150 for a simple
> cleaning plus a few pictures (not X-rays). Told her she
> needed two fillings - $525 each. Plus a crown - $1050.
>
> Doesn't this seem a bit steep? I know medical inflation
> has been high, but really. Note that her old dentist
> retired. A young guy took over his practice and raised
> all the prices. Maybe he's trying to recoup his med
> school costs and the cost of the practice all in the
> first year or two.
>
> Or I might just be out of touch. I got dentures 36 years
> ago. I'm now on my 4th set. Almost no problems - much
> less than folks with real teeth. As far as cost, it has
> averaged out about $100 a year - latest set was $800.
>
> But it sure seems to me that her dentist is overcharging.
Prices vary. I went to one guy for cleaning. He wasn't my usual dentist
but she is a considerable distance away. He advised me I needed to have
"deep cleaning". I don't recall the price but it was in four figures. I
declined and checked with my regular dentist...her price was 1/4 his.
Your prices do seem high but I've had very little contact with dentists. I
only have two small fillings and I didn't have any until I was about 75. I
don't recall the price for them but I guarantee that the cost for both was
well under $525.
Check around...call and ask price info for fillings and crowns.
Here's a site saying $75-$150 for silver fillings.
http://bestdentaltips.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/how-much-does-a-cavity-filling-typically-cost-without-dental-insurance/
--
dadiOH
____________________________
Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
On 12/20/2013 7:17 AM, dadiOH wrote:
> Prices vary. I went to one guy for cleaning. He wasn't my usual dentist
> but she is a considerable distance away. He advised me I needed to have
> "deep cleaning". I don't recall the price but it was in four figures. I
> declined and checked with my regular dentist...her price was 1/4 his.
About two years ago, I went to a dentist who recomended a deep cleaning.
Within a week I had an infected tooth which I lost a couple of months
later.
I am nearly 70 and have never had problems with my teeth, and only have
about a half dozen minor filling. So the net results of the deep clean
I was up about 1000 for the cleaning plus the cost of the dentist
associated with the removal of the tooth.
On 12/20/2013 8:45 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 06:24:14 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>>> advantages. Records get transferred faster between medical
>>> professionals, they get updated faster, administration is easier and
>>> cheaper, symptoms get tracked easier, research is more efficient, the
>>> list goes on and on.
>>
>> I don't see all of those advantages you do Dave. But either way, we are a
>> nation that believes in privacy and does indeed look with concern and
>> distrust in governments and agencies with (potentially) self serving
>> concerns, having unwarranted access to information about us. We don't
>> suffer from the lack of any of the advantages you listed, so what's to be
>> gained from Obamacare's intent?
>
> Really??? That's one of the most shortsighted comments I've ever seen
> you make. I wonder how quickly you'd change your opinion if the
> medical communications technology of this day and age was suddenly
> dialed back to that of thirty years ago?
>
> Sure, everybody likes their privacy, no argument. However, the US
> faces many levels of terrorism both foreign and domestic. I also have
> to wonder how many home grown domestic acts of terrorism have been
> caught and dealt with because of that invasion of your privacy? I
> certainly don't like or approve of governments spying on their
> citizens, but in this day and age, it's become a very necessary evil
> if you value your health and safety.
>
I see no problem in an individual doctor computerizing his medical
records, BUT there is no need for the government to be involved except
to monitor the accuracy of these systems handling those records. Most
people live and die within one locality and toward the end of their
lives go to one or two doctors.
WHY is it necessary for a doctor a thousand miles away have access to
those records. If the person is traveling, the family doctor should be
involved in any medical decision the other doctor makes, if necessary
records can be a transmitted at that time.
Government computerized medical records have no bearing on the quality
of medicine as a person is not getting his dental work in California,
blood checked in Maine and his heart work in Florida. Also talking about
the quality of medicine 30 years ago has no bearing on the government
controlling and nationalizing of medical records.
WHAT does a person's medical records have to do with preventing
terrorism. The last thing a person who is planning a massacre or
blowing up a building is thinking about is his heart condition. BASED
ON HISTORY, the only thing he is thinking about is serving Allah.
On 12/20/2013 10:19 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 12/20/2013 7:45 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:30:33 -0500, Keith Nuttle
>>> I see no problem in an individual doctor computerizing his medical
>>> records, BUT there is no need for the government to be involved except
>>> to monitor the accuracy of these systems handling those records. Most
>>> people live and die within one locality and toward the end of their
>>> lives go to one or two doctors.
>>
>> Yes, I agree with this. As you said, other than ensuring the accuracy
>> and universality of the record keeping, government shouldn't need to
>> know the content of those records.
>
> Where in the United States Constitution does it say that Congress shall
> have the power to enact laws regulating the accuracy and universality of
> medical record keeping?
>
>
Medical computer systems are consider Medical Devices and subject to the
2.3% obamacare tax.
The FDA has been given the responsibilty to insure that all medical
device and drugs are safe and effective.
In this case it would be the FDA's responsibilty to insure that the
medical records went into the system, were stored in the system without
being altered, could be retrive as originally written from the system.
and that there was an effective protection system to prevent tampering
with those records.
The FDA has been in existance for over 100 years and people complain
bitterly if it does not do its job. Remember the tylenol scare, the
drug that created birth defects, etc
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 18:50:01 -0600, Leon wrote:
> Now you say you have almost no problems with your dentures and yet you
> are on your 5 set of teeth. I'm still on my first set. ;~)
Because, after 8-10 years, the plastic teeth are worn down. There are
harder materials available, but people I know whose had those said they
chipped easily.
--
This message was for rec.woodworking - if it appears in homeownershub
they ripped it off.
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 06:30:44 -0800, jo4hn wrote:
> Part of the cost goes toward combating the overweening sadness inherent
> in the profession. On your next visit, note that the dentist is forever
> looking down in the mouth.
Ouch! Bad joke :-). But preferable to the dingbats who hijacked the
thread to foam at the mouth about Obamacare.
--
This message was for rec.woodworking - if it appears in homeownershub
they ripped it off.
Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I see no problem in an individual doctor computerizing his medical
> records, BUT there is no need for the government to be involved except
> to monitor the accuracy of these systems handling those records. Most
> people live and die within one locality and toward the end of their
> lives go to one or two doctors.
I was the IT manager of an family practice metical clinic that implemented
an electronic medical records system a decade before Obamacare was a
twinkle in Mit Romenys eye. Was very expensive to implement both in
capital costs and implementation. Why bother? Simply because it was the only
way for them to get vaguely timely payments from the insurance companies.
In many ways this provision of ACA is another benefit to the insurance industry.
> WHY is it necessary for a doctor a thousand miles away have access to
> those records. If the person is traveling, the family doctor should be
> involved in any medical decision the other doctor makes, if necessary
> records can be a transmitted at that time.
Untrue. Do you realized that many specialist have been outsourced? Lab
results for anything other than the most trival tests are rarely done
in-house. Way too expensive to have an in-house equipement to do, say,
blood gases when you may only have to do a handful in a year. Do you
realize that the interpretation of x-rays and sonagrams are often done
by specialist many miles or even countries away?
--
Frank Stutzman
Boise, ID
On 12/20/2013 4:24 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
> On 12/20/2013 02:02 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 12/20/2013 1:53 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 12/20/2013 12:33 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>> On 12/20/2013 10:06 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>> On 12/20/2013 9:03 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/20/2013 10:19 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/20/2013 7:45 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:30:33 -0500, Keith Nuttle
>>>>>>>>> I see no problem in an individual doctor computerizing his medical
>>>>>>>>> records, BUT there is no need for the government to be involved
>>>>>>>>> except
>>>>>>>>> to monitor the accuracy of these systems handling those records.
>>>>>>>>> Most
>>>>>>>>> people live and die within one locality and toward the end of
>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>> lives go to one or two doctors.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, I agree with this. As you said, other than ensuring the
>>>>>>>> accuracy
>>>>>>>> and universality of the record keeping, government shouldn't
>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>> know the content of those records.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where in the United States Constitution does it say that Congress
>>>>>>> shall
>>>>>>> have the power to enact laws regulating the accuracy and
>>>>>>> universality of
>>>>>>> medical record keeping?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Medical computer systems are consider Medical Devices and subject to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> 2.3% obamacare tax.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The FDA has been given the responsibilty to insure that all medical
>>>>>> device and drugs are safe and effective.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In this case it would be the FDA's responsibilty to insure that the
>>>>>> medical records went into the system, were stored in the system
>>>>>> without
>>>>>> being altered, could be retrive as originally written from the
>>>>>> system.
>>>>>> and that there was an effective protection system to prevent
>>>>>> tampering
>>>>>> with those records.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The FDA has been in existance for over 100 years and people complain
>>>>>> bitterly if it does not do its job. Remember the tylenol scare, the
>>>>>> drug that created birth defects, etc
>>>>>
>>>>> Where in that response is my question answered?
>>>>
>>>> Where in the constitution does it say that you can't run a stop sign?
>>>> If you want the proof, try and disprove it.
>>>
>>> The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United
>>> States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
>>> reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since the
>>> Constitution does not delegate to the federal government the power to
>>> regulate local vehicle traffic, that power is reserved to the States.
>>> Cities and counties are subdivisions of the states, who collectively,
>>> under the Constitution, have the power under the Tenth Amendment to
>>> regulate local vehicle traffic. That includes the state/local
>>> government power to erect stop signs and provide penalties for failing
>>> to stop at an intersection where a stop sign has been erected.
>>>
>>> Since I took the time to show how the Constitution allows states to
>>> regulate traffic, return the favor, and show me where the Constitution
>>> empowers Congress to enact federal laws regulating the accuracy and
>>> universality of medical record keeping.
>>
>> Keep Looking you will find it. You are the one that wants to know
>> right? '~)
>
> I looked at the enumerated powers of the Federal Government under the
> Constitution:
>
> <http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/historical-documents/united-states-constitution/thirty-enumerated-powers/#.UrS0RNewukc>
>
>
> Nope, not there.
>
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
Since I was not alive when the FDA was created, I assume like the
ability to tax citizens for not having health insurance, it was
considered constitutional under the commerce section of the
constitution. With the FDA regulating drugs and medical devices, it
provide a uniform set of law for all states to operate under when
engaged in interstate commerce.
I believe this same section was the justification for the social
security system.
The commerce section has been significantly been abused, as with the
obamacare ruling. Tax are to be applied equally, not targeted at
specific groups or individuals, which obamacare does
"Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Since I took the time to show how the Constitution allows
> states to regulate traffic, return the favor, and show me
> where the Constitution empowers Congress to enact federal
> laws regulating the accuracy and universality of medical
> record keeping.
Constitution? They don' need no steenkin' constitution.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
[email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 06:24:14 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>>> advantages. Records get transferred faster between medical
>>> professionals, they get updated faster, administration is easier and
>>> cheaper, symptoms get tracked easier, research is more efficient,
>>> the list goes on and on.
>>
>> I don't see all of those advantages you do Dave. But either way, we
>> are a nation that believes in privacy and does indeed look with
>> concern and distrust in governments and agencies with (potentially)
>> self serving concerns, having unwarranted access to information
>> about us. We don't suffer from the lack of any of the advantages
>> you listed, so what's to be gained from Obamacare's intent?
>
> Really??? That's one of the most shortsighted comments I've ever seen
> you make. I wonder how quickly you'd change your opinion if the
> medical communications technology of this day and age was suddenly
> dialed back to that of thirty years ago?
>
That's a completely different statement. Obamacare isn't going to offer any
significant benefit to medical communications over what we have now. Only a
different level of control and access - by those who just don't need to
know. We aren't living in the dark ages down here, and in need of this kind
of fix to our health care. There are just too many things in Obamacare that
just don't need to be in healthcare.
> Sure, everybody likes their privacy, no argument. However, the US
> faces many levels of terrorism both foreign and domestic. I also have
> to wonder how many home grown domestic acts of terrorism have been
> caught and dealt with because of that invasion of your privacy?
It's true that we could both wonder about that but our wondering about it is
not justification for granting unwarranted accesses to governments and
corporations. Simply wondering about something is not justification for an
action.
> I
> certainly don't like or approve of governments spying on their
> citizens, but in this day and age, it's become a very necessary evil
> if you value your health and safety.
I completely do not agree with such a sweeping statement. George Bush would
have loved you...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:30:33 -0500, Keith Nuttle
>> I see no problem in an individual doctor computerizing his medical
>> records, BUT there is no need for the government to be involved
>> except to monitor the accuracy of these systems handling those
>> records. Most people live and die within one locality and toward
>> the end of their lives go to one or two doctors.
>
> Yes, I agree with this. As you said, other than ensuring the accuracy
> and universality of the record keeping, government shouldn't need to
> know the content of those records.
So... what is the problem that universality of records keeping seeking to
fix? It would be helpful to point to references from the medical community
that indicate the lack of such is currently causing a problem.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 12/20/2013 6:24 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Sure, it would be easier for *anybody* to snoop, but how about
>>> putting aside your paranoid tendencies for one minute and consider
>>> some of the advantages. Records get transferred faster between
>>> medical professionals, they get updated faster, administration is
>>> easier and cheaper, symptoms get tracked easier, research is more
>>> efficient, the list goes on and on.
>>
>> I don't see all of those advantages you do Dave. But either way, we
>> are a nation that believes in privacy and does indeed look with
>> concern and distrust in governments and agencies with (potentially)
>> self serving concerns, having unwarranted access to information
>> about us. We don't suffer from the lack of any of the advantages
>> you listed, so what's to be gained from Obamacare's intent?
>>
>
> Maybe you've never needed the features so you don't see the
> advantages. Before going to full computerized records, my wife's
> file was about 10 inches thick and that was before some additional
> problems in the past couple of years. Would be double that now. That
> file had to move from the internist to the cardiologist to the
> hematologist. etc and it may be in just a day or two or even the same
> day in locations a couple of miles apart. ow, you have a scan or
> x-ray done and the doctor has it in seconds. Need to compare an
> x-ray with one from last year? You have it in seconds with no file
> hunting.
That's a completely different matter. Doctor's offices all across the
country are going to computerized medical records for several reasons - all
pre-dating Obamacare. That practice in and of itself does not give the
government any oversight or insight into those records. The discussion is
not about the practice of computerized medical records.
>
> I hope you never have the need for quick access to multiple records,
> but for those that do, it is well worth having. Our medical facility
> was smart enough to do this before mandated.
As have been most. But again - that's not the discussion.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
John Grossbohlin wrote:
> Regarding privacy in the U.S... we have no privacy. Whether it's
> health data, surveillance cameras, credit card transaction data,
> loyalty programs at stores, education systems, internet, TV and phone
> utilization records... we are all under surveillance with or without
> government involvement.
And by that logic you believe you should surrender even more privacy?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Leon wrote:
> On 12/21/2013 1:44 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>>
>>> Regarding privacy in the U.S... we have no privacy. Whether it's
>>> health data, surveillance cameras, credit card transaction data,
>>> loyalty programs at stores, education systems, internet, TV and
>>> phone utilization records... we are all under surveillance with or
>>> without government involvement.
>>
>> And by that logic you believe you should surrender even more privacy?
>>
>
>
> I think what he is saying is that there is no privacy to hide. It is
> already all out there. Just because you or I don't know who all
> knows, does not mean that they don't know.
I don't roll by that kind of logic. The government does not know as much as
they want to know and will know under the new rules, and there's no reason
to let them.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 14:44:00 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>> And by that logic you believe you should surrender even more privacy?
>
> He didn't say that or even suggest it. It was just a statement of
> fact. You seem to believe that allowing or disallowing another
> technology improvement is going to change something. It won't. The
> horse is so far out of the barn on that one that it's in another
> country.
Show me where I even came close to suggesting that I believe in disallowing
another technology improvement Dave. That is just pure hogwash and you are
more than just reading into what I have said, you are completely ignoring
things I have said in order to make that ludicrious statement.
>
> Nevertheless, I do understand the need to fight against every little
> incursion on your privacy, if only just to marginally slow it down or,
> at the very least, get your displeasure known.
It's more than just privacy - it's also about what role and how far into the
lives of citizens a government should be allowed to reach.
>
> As far as digitizing medical records go, I'm all for it. The
> advantages far outweigh the negatives as far as I'm concerned. And,
> considering that I've had years of extensive contact with our medical
> system, (Canadian in this case), I am fully aware of all the negatives
> and positives.
I've not suggested that digitizing medical records is in any way
objectionable.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
John Grossbohlin wrote:
>
> HIPPA, which predates ACA, places limitations on who can see medical
> data. However, for payment, quality, fraud detection, and other
> reasons that medical data is utilized by insurers, the government and
> medical providers. On the other hand, the web sites used to sign
> people up under the ACA are not collecting or reporting medical data
> (it's basically demographic and financial data) so it isn't really
> covered under HIPPA per se despite the rants of some politicians
> during the recent hearings.
If they collect your name they fall under HIPPA.
> There are laws that cover other aspects
> of the data (tax, financial) but within the overall ACA system the
> data can be and will be shared amongst the organizations playing a
> role in the process.
I prefer not to believe so naively about our government and what they do
with information they get their hands on.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Leon wrote:
>
> Mike you might be a bit naive if you don't think the government knows
> more about you than you think they do, 50 years ago.
Why do people have so much trouble reading what has actually been stated by
a person? I did not say they don't know things about us, and I certainly
didn't say they don't know more than they did 50 years ago. That's part of
the problem. They know too much and they want into more of your life and
mine than they should be allowed to do. That's an entirely different
statement.
>
> Now while I believe they have all the information that they would ever
> care to get, I feel that they would mishandle it and or have
> mishandled it. They don't really know what they are sitting on. I
> would agree that they don't know what they have.
>
> The data about you and I is out there, the government just does not
> know how to put two plus two together efficiently.
And they don't have legal access to a lot of it right now. No reason to let
them gain that.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 17:25:13 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>> Show me where I even came close to suggesting that I believe in
>> disallowing another technology improvement Dave. That is just pure
>> hogwash and you are more than just reading into what I have said,
>> you are completely ignoring things I have said in order to make that
>> ludicrious statement.
>
> You said it right here despite me and several others telling you about
> the advantages of putting all records online. Got a little memory
> problem there Mike?
> V V V V V V V V V V
>
>>> advantages. Records get transferred faster between medical
>>> professionals, they get updated faster, administration is easier and
>>> cheaper, symptoms get tracked easier, research is more efficient,
>>> the list goes on and on.
>>
>> I don't see all of those advantages you do Dave. But either way, we
>> are a nation that believes in privacy and does indeed look with
>> concern and distrust in governments and agencies with (potentially)
>> self serving concerns, having unwarranted access to information
>> about us. We don't suffer from the lack of any of the advantages
>> you listed, so what's to be gained from Obamacare's intent?
Come on Dave - I disputed your statements, I did not say I don't see value
in digital medical records. I have never suggested disallowing the progress
of technology. I just don't fall prey to statements that are unsupported
such as yours. There is however a huge difference between digitizing
medical records and placing them on-line. I'd be dead against that. For
the love of Pete - huge and security aware mega-retailers can't secure
credit card information and you suggest that information as sensitive as
medical records be placed on line by god-only-knows-what kind of technical
security genius?
So far no one has explained a valid reason regardles of your claim that you
and others have. The closest was Edwin, who's situation with his wife would
have been equally or nearly equally addressed without digital records, let
alone on-line records. It is done every day.
I fully support my doctor going to digital records and getting rid of the
racks of file folders. I also support that those records remain in that
office. If needed across the country to treat me, they can be sent at the
speed of an electron. I have no issue with technology. Dave - please read
the things I write before jumping into a reply that misses the point of what
I said.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 20:17:33 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>> I fully support my doctor going to digital records and getting rid
>> of the racks of file folders. I also support that those records
>> remain in that office. If needed across the country to treat me,
>> they can be sent at the speed of an electron. I have no issue with
>> technology. Dave - please read the things I write before jumping
>> into a reply that misses the point of what I said.
>
> Obviously, we're not agreeing to what "online" means. When I say
> "online", I'm not for one second suggesting that records put made
> available for any medical professional to see at the click of a mouse.
> Sending records across the country at the speed of an electron *IS*
> putting them online, if only for the time it takes to send those
> records. Electronic transmission is an online process as far as I'm
> concerned.
So we're past that one.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 22:14:10 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>> So we're past that one.
>
> My apologies for any misinterpretation.
Oh hell - it's the nature of the medium.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:15:57 -0500, Keith Nuttle
>You also have to figure in the cost required by obamacare to computerize
>medical records, so it is easier for the NSA to snoop.
Sure, it would be easier for *anybody* to snoop, but how about putting
aside your paranoid tendencies for one minute and consider some of the
advantages. Records get transferred faster between medical
professionals, they get updated faster, administration is easier and
cheaper, symptoms get tracked easier, research is more efficient, the
list goes on and on.
On 12/21/2013 1:44 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>
>> Regarding privacy in the U.S... we have no privacy. Whether it's
>> health data, surveillance cameras, credit card transaction data,
>> loyalty programs at stores, education systems, internet, TV and phone
>> utilization records... we are all under surveillance with or without
>> government involvement.
>
> And by that logic you believe you should surrender even more privacy?
>
I think what he is saying is that there is no privacy to hide. It is
already all out there. Just because you or I don't know who all knows,
does not mean that they don't know.
On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 17:25:13 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>Show me where I even came close to suggesting that I believe in disallowing
>another technology improvement Dave. That is just pure hogwash and you are
>more than just reading into what I have said, you are completely ignoring
>things I have said in order to make that ludicrious statement.
You said it right here despite me and several others telling you about
the advantages of putting all records online. Got a little memory
problem there Mike?
V V V V V V V V V V
>> advantages. Records get transferred faster between medical
>> professionals, they get updated faster, administration is easier and
>> cheaper, symptoms get tracked easier, research is more efficient, the
>> list goes on and on.
>
>I don't see all of those advantages you do Dave. But either way, we are a
>nation that believes in privacy and does indeed look with concern and
>distrust in governments and agencies with (potentially) self serving
>concerns, having unwarranted access to information about us. We don't
>suffer from the lack of any of the advantages you listed, so what's to be
>gained from Obamacare's intent?
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 21:10:41 -0500, woodchucker <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 12/19/2013 8:15 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>> On 12/19/2013 7:43 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> ems - much less than folks with real
>>> teeth. As far as cost, it has averaged out about $100 a year - latest
>>> set was $800.
>>>
>>> But it sure seems to me that her dentist is overcharging.
>>
>>
>> The first thing you need to look at is the 2.3% tax that obama care
>> placed on medical devices. Medical devices are just about everything
>> you see in the doctor's office. from band aids, to x-ray machines, to
>> the medical computer on his desk.
>>
>> You also have to figure in the cost required by obamacare to computerize
>> medical records, so it is easier for the NSA to snoop.
>Easier, it gives the feds your records. It's required.
>They will centralize your info so they can share it supposedly with the
>doctors.
...and their political cronies.
>My Dr's hate obamacare. I hear it each time I walk in.
That's the only thing universal about the plan.
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 06:24:14 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>> advantages. Records get transferred faster between medical
>> professionals, they get updated faster, administration is easier and
>> cheaper, symptoms get tracked easier, research is more efficient, the
>> list goes on and on.
>
>I don't see all of those advantages you do Dave. But either way, we are a
>nation that believes in privacy and does indeed look with concern and
>distrust in governments and agencies with (potentially) self serving
>concerns, having unwarranted access to information about us. We don't
>suffer from the lack of any of the advantages you listed, so what's to be
>gained from Obamacare's intent?
Really??? That's one of the most shortsighted comments I've ever seen
you make. I wonder how quickly you'd change your opinion if the
medical communications technology of this day and age was suddenly
dialed back to that of thirty years ago?
Sure, everybody likes their privacy, no argument. However, the US
faces many levels of terrorism both foreign and domestic. I also have
to wonder how many home grown domestic acts of terrorism have been
caught and dealt with because of that invasion of your privacy? I
certainly don't like or approve of governments spying on their
citizens, but in this day and age, it's become a very necessary evil
if you value your health and safety.
On 12/20/2013 9:30 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>
> I see no problem in an individual doctor computerizing his medical
> records, BUT there is no need for the government to be involved except
> to monitor the accuracy of these systems handling those records. Most
> people live and die within one locality and toward the end of their
> lives go to one or two doctors.
Agree on government involvement.
>
> WHY is it necessary for a doctor a thousand miles away have access to
> those records. If the person is traveling, the family doctor should be
> involved in any medical decision the other doctor makes, if necessary
> records can be a transmitted at that time.
Not that simple. My wife went into a hospital about 500 miles from home
on a Sunday when her regular doctor's office is closed. Would have been
nice to have some additional information.
>
> Government computerized medical records have no bearing on the quality
> of medicine as a person is not getting his dental work in California,
> blood checked in Maine and his heart work in Florida.
Happens more than you think. Again, personal experience when my wife
needs her blood checked when we travel. My daughter had a CT scan at
our hospital about a mile from us, but the results came from a doctor
that read the scan 250 miles away at a Philadelphia hospital.
While the government does not need to be involved, having access can be
life saving. Perhaps a person could carry an electronic key to be used
when needed.
"Leon" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>On 12/21/2013 1:44 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>>
>>> Regarding privacy in the U.S... we have no privacy. Whether it's
>>> health data, surveillance cameras, credit card transaction data,
>>> loyalty programs at stores, education systems, internet, TV and phone
>>> utilization records... we are all under surveillance with or without
>>> government involvement.
>
>> And by that logic you believe you should surrender even more privacy?
>
>I think what he is saying is that there is no privacy to hide. It is
>already all out there. Just because you or I don't know who all knows,
>does not mean that they don't know.
That pretty much sums it up... privacy is an illusion and it certainly isn't
a protected right under the Constitution nor the law these days.
HIPPA, which predates ACA, places limitations on who can see medical data.
However, for payment, quality, fraud detection, and other reasons that
medical data is utilized by insurers, the government and medical providers.
On the other hand, the web sites used to sign people up under the ACA are
not collecting or reporting medical data (it's basically demographic and
financial data) so it isn't really covered under HIPPA per se despite the
rants of some politicians during the recent hearings. There are laws that
cover other aspects of the data (tax, financial) but within the overall ACA
system the data can be and will be shared amongst the organizations playing
a role in the process.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with any of this... they are simply
observations based on my academic and professional careers where I've worked
with a lot of confidential data...
On 12/19/2013 4:43 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> My wife went to the dentist today. $150 for a simple cleaning plus a few
> pictures (not X-rays). Told her she needed two fillings - $525 each.
> Plus a crown - $1050.
>
> Doesn't this seem a bit steep? I know medical inflation has been high,
> but really. Note that her old dentist retired. A young guy took over
> his practice and raised all the prices. Maybe he's trying to recoup his
> med school costs and the cost of the practice all in the first year or
> two.
>
> Or I might just be out of touch. I got dentures 36 years ago. I'm now
> on my 4th set. Almost no problems - much less than folks with real
> teeth. As far as cost, it has averaged out about $100 a year - latest
> set was $800.
>
> But it sure seems to me that her dentist is overcharging.
>
Part of the cost goes toward combating the overweening sadness inherent
in the profession. On your next visit, note that the dentist is forever
looking down in the mouth.
mahalo,
jo4hn
[nyuk]
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:15:57 -0500, Keith Nuttle
>>You also have to figure in the cost required by obamacare to computerize
>>medical records, so it is easier for the NSA to snoop.
>Sure, it would be easier for *anybody* to snoop, but how about putting
>aside your paranoid tendencies for one minute and consider some of the
>advantages. Records get transferred faster between medical
>professionals, they get updated faster, administration is easier and
>cheaper, symptoms get tracked easier, research is more efficient, the
>list goes on and on.
Yes, the list does go on and on... As the ultimate payer for Medicare and
Medicaid the government has and will continue to collect medical data on
anyone covered under those programs. With subsidies under ACA they also now
have an interest from the payer perspective for commercial lines of
business. They use the medical encounter data to ferret out fraud (which
historically has been rampant) and they also monitor the quality of care
providers render. Under CMS's Stars program the insurance companies are
reimbursed based on the quality of care their providers render. As such the
plans analyze the encounter data and undertake provider education
initiatives so that providers follow best practices. Members shopping Docs
to obtain drugs are also identified through the data. You may have heard
about insurance companies terminating contracts with thousands of providers
recently... the vast majority of those cases were the result of the provider
not following best practices, i.e., rendering inadequate care, often despite
years of interventions by the plans.
Self funded plans (where a company pays the claims themselves) have an
interest in improving the care and health of their employees also. While
they don't see the individual employees' data they do see aggregated data...
they want to see an improvement in their employees' health over time. This
improvement comes about as a result of health improvement programs (e.g.,
stop smoking, exercise, nutrition) and through high quality preventative
care.
Regarding privacy in the U.S... we have no privacy. Whether it's health
data, surveillance cameras, credit card transaction data, loyalty programs
at stores, education systems, internet, TV and phone utilization records...
we are all under surveillance with or without government involvement.